Britain's new right no longer wants to "reduce" immigration. It wants to reverse it. For more than two decades, Britain's immigration debate has revolved around one central question: How can migration be reduced?

That debate is rapidly becoming obsolete.

A new generation of British commentators, activists and political thinkers is asking a far more radical question, not how to slow immigration, but whether the demographic transformation of Britain should itself be reversed.

Connor Tomlinson is among the clearest representatives of that emerging movement. During a recent conversation in London, he argued that Britain has already passed the point where simply "stopping the boats" or tightening asylum rules can solve what he considers the country's defining challenge. In his view, the issue is not illegal migration but the cumulative effects of decades of legal immigration, multiculturalism and political reluctance to discuss national identity.

The answer, he argues, is what supporters increasingly call "remigration": the large-scale removal of migrants and, in some cases, the revocation of citizenship granted in recent decades. Only a few years ago, such ideas would have been dismissed as politically impossible. Today, they are increasingly entering mainstream political conversation. That shift says as much about Britain as it does about Tomlinson himself.

The End of the Old Immigration Debate

The backdrop is impossible to ignore. Britain has experienced record levels of net migration while simultaneously witnessing growing public concern over integration, housing shortages, pressure on public services and a series of high-profile criminal cases involving migrants or the children of migrants.

The debate surrounding organised child sexual exploitation, particularly following Baroness Casey's review, has reinforced the perception among many voters that successive governments were unwilling to confront difficult questions for fear of accusations of racism. Tomlinson repeatedly returns to this theme, arguing that social taboos prevented an honest national conversation for years. Whether one accepts that diagnosis or not, the political consequences are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

For much of the public, immigration is no longer simply an issue of border control. It has become a question about the country's future identity.

From Border Control to National Identity

Perhaps the most striking aspect of Tomlinson's worldview is that he frames immigration primarily as a question of nationhood rather than economics. He argues that every successful nation requires a clearly defined people with a shared historical identity. Without that foundation, he believes politics becomes little more than competition between competing ethnic and cultural blocs.

Throughout the interview he returns to concepts such as heritage, historical continuity and national cohesion rather than GDP growth, labour shortages or fiscal policy. This represents an important evolution within the European right.

For years, conservative parties focused on border security, asylum reform and integration. Tomlinson argues that these measures no longer address what he believes is the underlying issue. If demographic change itself is viewed as the problem, then preventing future immigration cannot reverse changes that have already occurred.

That logic naturally leads to remigration. His proposals are sweeping: deport foreign criminals, remove failed asylum seekers, revoke citizenship in certain circumstances, restrict welfare eligibility for migrants and fundamentally reshape Britain's immigration system. Critics will argue these proposals are legally, morally and practically impossible. Supporters contend that extraordinary demographic change demands extraordinary political responses.

A New Language on the Right

Another notable feature of Tomlinson's argument is his rejection of the labels traditionally directed at nationalist figures.

Asked about being described as a white nationalist or white supremacist, he dismisses such accusations as attempts to shut down debate rather than engage with his ideas. Instead, he describes himself as a "Reactionary Catholic Zoomer" and insists his political project is centred on preserving Britain's historic cultural identity rather than asserting racial superiority. Whether opponents accept that distinction is another matter entirely. But it reflects a broader shift across Europe's emerging nationalist movements. Increasingly, the language is one of civilisation, culture, heritage and historical continuity rather than race.

Tomlinson also points to countries such as Hungary and Israel as examples of states that unapologetically prioritise the interests of their majority populations. He asks why similar principles are regarded as legitimate elsewhere but considered unacceptable when applied to Britain. The argument is becoming increasingly common across Europe's populist right.

The Real Story

What makes conversations like this politically significant is not necessarily that Tomlinson's proposals will become government policy. Rather, history suggests that ideas often begin on the political margins before influencing the mainstream.

Calls to leave the European Union were once dismissed as fringe before culminating in Brexit. Demands for stronger border controls, once considered controversial, are now shared across much of Europe's political establishment. Whether remigration follows the same trajectory remains uncertain. What is beyond doubt is that Britain's immigration debate has entered a new phase.

The language has changed. The assumptions have changed. The ambitions of a growing section of the political right have changed. Tomlinson represents a generation no longer satisfied with promises to reduce annual migration figures. They believe Britain has already undergone a demographic transformation that can only be addressed by reversing it.

Most Britons may reject that conclusion. Many others increasingly appear willing to hear it. That, more than any individual proposal discussed during the interview, may prove to be the interview's most important political insight.